ASHISH KUMAR VERMA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-26, NEW DELHI

ITA 500/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 September 2026AY 2019-208 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not yet adjudicated the additions made on a substantive basis. It was of the considered view that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the case of substantive addition first, and then taken up the protective additions, or at best, decided both simultaneously. Since this was not done, the Tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal on substantive addition first, and thereafter, the appeal on protective assessment should be taken up. The findings in ITA No. 499/Del/2026 were to apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 500/Del/2026. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the other grounds raised by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ashish Kumar Verma, filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi, for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The appeals challenged the ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and the assessment orders passed by the AO. The core of the dispute revolves around reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147, alleged defects in the reasons recorded and approvals obtained for reassessment, the validity of additions made on a protective basis based on digital data seized without a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and the CIT(A)'s failure to adjudicate substantive additions before considering protective additions. The assessee also contested additions related to estimated commission on foreign remittances and interest on borrowed capital for house property income. The appeals were heard together due to similar grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) is illegal, bad in law, and against the principle of natural justice, warranting the quashing of the assessment order, as argued by the assessee. 2. Whether the initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and the reasons recorded by the AO are illegal, bad in law, mechanical, and without application of mind, as contended by the assessee. 3. Whether the approval obtained under Section 151 for initiating reassessment proceedings and under Section 148B for finalizing the assessment order is illegal, bad in law, and mechanical, as argued by the assessee. 4. Whether the addition made by the AO based on digital data seized without providing a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is illegal and bad in law, as contended by the assessee. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing the appellate order despite protective additions being made in the assessee's hands while the substantive additions in the hands of other persons were not yet adjudicated, as argued by the assessee. 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions of Rs. 1,23,12,161/- (AY 2018-19) and Rs. 1,01,58,425/- (AY 2019-20) on a protective basis, estimating commission on alleged foreign remittance transactions, when the assessee had no connection with them, as contended by the assessee. 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of loss shown under the head income from house property by claiming interest payable on borrowed capital, as argued by the assessee. 8. Whether the AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A read with Section 274, as contended by the assessee. 9. Whether the interest charged under Sections 234A and 234B is illegal and excessive, as argued by the assessee. The Revenue argued that reassessment was compulsory in search cases after 01.04.2021, and notice under Section 148 was issued after due approval. It also contended that protective assessment is necessary to safeguard revenue in case substantive additions are deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 148B,Section 65B,Section 270A,Section 274,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES ‘C’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Hearing: 16.09.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:

Appeals in these cases have been filed by the assessee against the orders even dated 05.12.2025 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi for Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. Grounds of appeal in both the cases are the same (though amount may vary) so they were heard together and order is being passed in the sake of brevity and convenience.

3.

Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in ITA No. 499/Del/2026 are as under:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the ex- parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →